This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
(Photo by Nathan Posner/Anadolu via Getty Images) For every prospective law student nervous about striding into a first-year lecture next Fall and embarrassing yourself under the professor’s withering interrogation, trust that it won’t be nearly as bad as what just happened on Capitol Hill.
(Photo by Brendan Smialowski/AFP/Getty Images) In a move that surprised absolutely no one and thrilled only the most ardent fans of procedural rigor, Merrick Garland has returned to Arnold & Porter as a partner in their Appellate & Supreme Court practice group. Circuit Court of Appeals. Jean Carroll case. So… not great.
The move violated a court order based, in no small part, on the fact that the Enemy Aliens Act actually requires a war with or invasion by a “foreign nation or government.” Follow him on Twitter or Bluesky if you’re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. That’s crazy.
Trump’s appellate lawyer John Sauer gets to be Solicitor General and file weekly Supreme Court briefs in cases like Trump v. Even after stacking the DOJ with personal cronies, calling them “his lawyers” out loud delivers a ConstitutionalLaw jump scare. People Who Hurt His Feelings.
Subscribe Δ NEXT: Monday Open Thread Josh Blackman is a constitutionallaw professor at the South Texas College of Law Houston and the President of the Harlan Institute. Email (Required) Email This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged. Follow him @JoshMBlackman.
(Photo by Bill O’Leary/The Washington Post via Getty Images) Justice Stephen Breyer may no longer sit on the Supreme Court, but he still has thoughts about his old workplace. The Open to Debate crew notes that they recorded a prior debate titled “Should SCOTUS, the Supreme Court, focus on the original meaning of the Constitution?”
I previously wrote about the latest New York gun law passed after the Court’s ruling in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Suddaby issued a temporary restraining order against a substantial part of the law, including barring the provisions previously discussed as presumptively unconstitutional. Instead, Gov.
New York Democrats continue to pass laws that are virtually guaranteed to be struck down and further reinforce Second Amendment rights. New York Democrats have passed a series of laws that led to catastrophic losses in federal court, including the recent major ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc.
As the brief recalls, in Bruen (2022) the Supreme Court emphatically reinforced the Heller rule that the Second Amendment protects firearms in common use by law-abiding persons for lawful purposes. The brief covers familiar ground, but does condition some of its statements with an eye toward future defense of federal law.
Supreme Court ruled in Tandon v. Accordingly, the Court granted an injunction pending disposition of the appeal in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The trial court denied the motion for preliminary injunction. The plaintiffs sought relief from the Supreme Court, asking it to grant an injunction. Newsom , 593 U.
New York Democrats have passed a series of laws that led to catastrophic losses in federal court, including the recent major ruling in in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. legislative assemblies, polling places, and courthouses—we are also aware of no disputes regarding the lawfulness of such prohibitions.
After triggering a court fight, Grisham backed down and scaled down her order to ban concealed weapons in parks and playgrounds. Now, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit has rejected her bid to lift that injunction in a key decision on appeal. She is still doubling down and increasing the losses in the courts.
In its earlier summary judgment ruling , the court began with a discussion of the highly analogous case of Pickering v. In that case, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of public high school teacher Marvin Pickering, who wrote a letter to the local newspaper criticizing a school board’s allocation of funding for athletic programs.
A handful of high-profile cases has sparked a larger public debate about the impact of self-defense laws. According to law professors Guha Krishnamurthi of the University of Oklahoma College of law and Peter Salib of the University of Houston Law Center, this public concern is warranted. Vigilante Justice Firearm Laws.
The decision comes after two other district courts ruled in favor of the law — sending this issue to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit and potentially the Supreme Court. Indeed, President Biden has made dubious constitutional and historical claims about the Second Amendment and AR-15s.
In another more recent case, a complaint was launched against actor Amitabh Bachchan for singing the national anthem for 1 min 22 sec instead of the 52 seconds as prescribed by our law. This research paper also focuses on the directions of the Supreme Court in Shyam Narayan Chouksey v. But they are not laws.
Bruen was one of the most significant victories for the Second Amendment in the history of the Supreme Court. Simply listing most of Manhattan as a “sensitive place” will again push the constitutional envelope. Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University.
2021) where the court held that we held that the law was clearly established that the University could not engage in viewpoint discrimination involving a Christian club. For example, sports clubs and Greek organizations may hinge membership and leadership on sex, and the a cappella group, the “Hawkapellas,” is limited to women.
There is an important ruling this month out of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, which ruled against former high school music teacher John Kluge for refusing to comply with the school’s pronoun policy for religious reasons. What is most curious about the ruling is the timing. 2000e-2(a)(1). Hardison , 432 U.S.
Below is my column in the Hill on New York’s latest gun control measure — and the latest challenge to a New York law. The gun nuisance law is the latest in a long line of mistakes by New York. An example is the recent New York public nuisance law seeking to make gun manufacturers liable for gun crime.
The 14 bills to “dismantle racism” varies from “natural and protective” hairstyles in all competitive sports to “prohibit[ing] involuntary servitude for incarcerated persons.” Technically, affirmative action was barred decades ago by the Supreme Court. It is not clear how that would work. Bakke (1978).
On December 30, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit handed down a major opinion in in Adams v. The court ruled 7-4 against a statutory and constitutional challenge of a transgender student to a district policy requiring students to use bathrooms corresponding to their biological sex. 1731 (2020).
We will not tolerate threats against DOGE workers or law-breaking by the disgruntled. Martin notes that these actions may break numerous laws. Which is code for does not break any laws but I need to sound tough. This is not a serious law enforcement inquiry, but trying to bully a sitting Senator can score some social media buzz.
Boebert and Carlson are outspoken in their opposition to gender transitioning for children, transgender athletes competing in girl’s sporting event, and other current controversies. With 382 saleswomen and models, the court found that the group was too large. The Court in cases like New York Times v. In Brandenburg v.
In California, Newsom pledged to re-purpose the Texas “heartbeat law” to limit gun rights. Newsom’s gun ‘heartbeat’ law. Newsom tapped into the liberal rage after the Supreme Court refused to enjoin the Texas law that allows people to sue anyone who “aids or abets” an abortion performed after about six weeks.
As Marines descended upon Los Angeles to join the National Guard units already questionably legally called up, the Defense Department assured critics that they would only NOT arrest people — something they cannot legally do — but merely involuntarily detain people to hand over to local law enforcement. Just kidding.
.” (Elias was previously accused of lying to conceal the Clinton campaign’s funding of the Steele dossier, has sought to reverse election results, and has been sanctioned by the courts). Gerrymandering is to politics what doping is to sports. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.),
Earlier this week , the New York Times reported that University of Florida law professor — Trump-appointed federal judge, by the way — John L. Aside from everything else, the University of Florida law school community has… concern s. Isn’t this a law school class? It falls flat.
Below is my column in the Wall Street Journal on President Joe Biden’s promise almost two years ago that he would only consider a black female for the first vacancy on the Supreme Court. The three leading candidates are Justice Leondra Krueger of the California Supreme Court, U.S. That is not true.
When the Supreme Court ruled in the Citizens United case that corporations have free speech rights to participate in politics, Warren was appalled. She has long rejected the notion that corporations have the constitutional rights like individuals: “Corporations are not people. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.)
Here is the column: There are times when being a law professor ruins everything. It will be a fun bit of trivia for constitutionallaw geeks, but it was also telling. Some of these executive orders, if implemented directly, could be challenged in court. What is happening on Capitol Hill is far more concerning.
One hoped that Justice Alito opening the door to basing constitutionallaw on the rantings of 17th century witch hunters would usher in a new era where we could finally get back to some old-fashioned stake burnings. In all seriousness though, this is a real life state supreme court opinion. The “Mr. Or borrowed Roy Cohn.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 99,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content